3:41

Okay , welcome back to the regenerative health podcast

3:43

. I'm sitting down again with

3:45

Tristan Scott , who is an electrical

3:47

engineer and EMF expert

3:50

. He has extensively

3:52

researched the effects that

3:54

non-native electromagnetic fields

3:57

are having on human biology and

3:59

really fitting that into a health

4:01

optimizing paradigm

4:03

. Tristan , thanks for coming back on the show .

4:06

Yeah , thanks for having Max , Great to be back

4:08

and excited to talk about this topic

4:11

again in more depth

4:13

.

4:13

There is so much to go in

4:16

terms of EMF , but I

4:18

really want to address the topic of

4:20

5G . This is

4:22

an area that has

4:24

been the domain of , might

4:27

I say , quacks , more

4:29

fringe and health areas

4:32

, but the relevance

4:35

to human health is becoming

4:37

more and more apparent to me , especially

4:39

as I'm putting now more

4:41

and more the mitochondria at the center of this

4:43

kind of disease and sickness paradigm

4:48

. I think that non-native EMF really

4:51

makes more sense when we are

4:53

prioritizing our mitochondria as the

4:55

determinant of sickness

4:58

and disease . Maybe

5:00

, to start the interview often and

5:02

this is some topics that you covered really

5:04

well in your EMF 101 course , and

5:07

I'll put the links to that in the show

5:09

notes afterwards Maybe we can start

5:11

the discussion before we even talk about

5:13

5G , about what is the electromagnetic

5:16

spectrum that we

5:18

as humans evolved

5:20

with and what we are expecting from

5:23

an ancestral point of view .

5:26

Yeah , that's a great way to

5:28

start and I think that's important context

5:30

for talking about modern

5:33

EMFs that

5:35

are non-native origin . The

5:37

electromagnetic spectrum is

5:39

vast and this is basically

5:43

anything that we would

5:45

consider light , both non-visible

5:48

and visible light . And visible

5:50

light to humans is like a tiny

5:52

fraction of the electromagnetic

5:54

spectrum , but it's all comprised

5:57

of a photonic energy

6:00

. These waves have both an electric field component

6:02

and a magnetic field component , and

6:05

the difference between any

6:07

area on the spectrum is the

6:09

frequency that it's oscillating

6:11

at and the wavelength of

6:13

that wave . And what

6:16

we would be exposed to naturally

6:18

is predominantly what's coming from

6:20

sunlight that's reaching the Earth's

6:22

surface , so that's going to be visible

6:25

light , the full

6:27

rainbow , from violet to

6:30

red light , and then above and

6:32

below that , in terms of energy levels as well

6:34

, where we get UV radiation

6:36

UVA and UVB which makes it

6:38

to the Earth's surface UVC

6:41

does not really and then infrared

6:43

light , so near-infrared , mid-infrared

6:47

actually gets eaten up by the ionosphere

6:49

a little bit and then we get some far infrared that passes

6:52

through . So this is the predominant

6:54

electromagnetic radiation

6:56

that we're exposed to

6:58

on a daily basis as humans

7:01

. What our biology is

7:03

really programmed , quote-unquote

7:05

, to work with Like

7:07

this is the stimulus , this is the

7:09

energy from a photon

7:12

perspective that we're designed for and it's

7:14

quite vast but

7:16

it's not nearly encompassing the entire

7:19

electromagnetic spectrum and

7:21

that has both

7:23

a higher energy component to

7:25

it and a lower energy component and lower

7:28

frequency component to it

7:30

. So above the

7:32

visible and ultraviolet

7:34

spectrum in terms of frequency and energy , is

7:36

what we call ionizing radiation

7:39

. So that includes ultraviolet

7:41

, it includes x-rays , it includes

7:43

gamma-rays and sometimes there

7:45

is a very small , very

7:47

low intensity amount of ionizing

7:50

x-ray radiation , for example . That'll

7:53

make it down to the Earth's surface for

7:55

very small amounts . And again

7:57

, we can be exposed to these things at

8:00

a higher level on flights

8:02

because we're going tens of thousands

8:04

of feet above the Earth's

8:06

surface and that's why you get a little bit

8:08

higher exposure on transatlantic or

8:12

trans-consonant flights and

8:14

those are ionizing radiation

8:16

. So they have enough energy from

8:19

a photon perspective to knock an electron

8:21

completely out of its

8:23

orbital , making it

8:26

ionized , so removing it

8:28

from the atom completely , and

8:30

this is dangerous for

8:33

DNA damage and things like that . It's

8:35

known to cause

8:37

things like cancer and that's why we have to

8:39

be careful with x-rays . And then gamma-rays

8:41

are even higher energy photons above

8:43

that , below that , below

8:46

infrared is the

8:49

rest of the electromagnetic spectrum

8:51

you could say , and this is where most

8:54

of our technology is operating

8:56

at . We have the radio frequency realm

8:58

, we have the microwave frequency realm

9:01

, which is pretty much within the radio frequency

9:03

spectrum , it's just

9:05

named different because different

9:07

applications . And then

9:10

we have kind of the lower frequency

9:12

band , and the lower

9:14

frequency band is also

9:16

where we use our power

9:18

electrical grid

9:21

at 50 hertz internationally

9:23

or 60 hertz in the US , and

9:25

this is also where there's some native

9:28

electromagnetic radiation that we're exposed to as

9:31

well . So we have the infrared

9:33

visible ultraviolet exposure from sunlight

9:36

, and then we also have some

9:38

exposure to low frequency

9:41

magnetic fields and electric

9:43

fields , naturally from the Earth . So the

9:46

Earth has a magnetic field that

9:49

is a result of the molten

9:51

iron core . The moving charges

9:54

in the iron core generate

9:56

a magnetic field , so magnetic fields

9:58

are generated from moving charged particles or

10:01

current . And then there's

10:03

also the Schumann's residence , which

10:06

is a result of lightning strikes on

10:09

the Earth , and this is also

10:11

in the low frequency range , around

10:13

7.83 hertz for the first harmonic

10:15

. So these are natural

10:18

native electromagnetic radiation

10:21

that we are exposed

10:23

to , that we would have

10:26

been exposed to for the existence

10:28

of humanity and this is

10:30

what you could say our biology is kind of

10:32

tuned to work with . Everything

10:35

else is coming from

10:38

our technology , coming from non-native

10:40

sources , and one of the biggest differences

10:43

, especially in the low frequency electromagnetic

10:46

fields from the Earth that are natural

10:49

, is the intensity . The

10:51

intensity is very , very , very

10:53

small compared

10:55

to , say , our electrical grid

10:57

, what we're exposed to on a daily basis

10:59

and this is stuff that I talk about

11:02

quite often , and you could

11:04

argue as well that there's a very , very

11:06

tiny amount of radio frequencies

11:08

that also pass through the atmospheric

11:10

window , but again from , I

11:12

think one quote I read online from

11:15

a researcher said that if you put one cell

11:17

phone on the moon , it would surpass

11:19

all the radio frequency intensity that

11:21

we would quote unquote naturally

11:23

receive . So yeah

11:25

, it's kind of the gauntlet of the vast

11:28

electromagnetic spectrum . The argument

11:30

that people make is that non-ionizing

11:32

radiation is not harmful to our biology

11:34

, it only has a quote unquote thermal

11:37

effect and that

11:39

we're exposed to far higher levels of

11:41

EMFs from the sun , which

11:44

is the second part of that is

11:46

true we are from an energy

11:48

perspective , the EMF

11:51

from the sun is far higher

11:53

than radio waves . It's far higher than power

11:55

frequencies , but it is something

11:57

our biology is programmed to use

11:59

and has been for millions

12:01

of years .

12:04

Yeah , great summary . And I

12:06

think that there's very

12:08

convenient ways of passing

12:11

off or ignoring or

12:13

minimizing the novelty

12:16

of this environmental

12:18

exposure , which is non-native

12:20

electromagnetic fields . And

12:22

I think that when

12:24

we can obviously go in depth in the rest

12:26

of the podcast about why that is the case but

12:29

if something is tasteless

12:31

, colorless , can't be seen , can't

12:34

be felt well , can

12:38

obviously felt viscerally

12:41

, then it can be easy

12:44

to pass

12:46

it off as not being significant . But

12:49

when we realize

12:51

that the , not only the

12:53

wavelengths that we're being exposed to , but also

12:55

the intensity of the energy , is

12:57

like nothing that any ancestral

12:59

human had to deal

13:02

with , then I think it's a very

13:04

good way of framing this

13:07

as an abnormal thing

13:09

. So maybe talk

13:11

about the , maybe

13:14

a quick distinction between these

13:16

three types of non-native

13:19

EMFs , because 5G is obviously

13:21

a radio frequency , but you mentioned briefly

13:23

magnetic and electric . So

13:25

just give a brief overview

13:27

of those three before we dive into

13:30

5G .

13:32

Yeah , so any electromagnetic wave

13:34

is going to have an electric field

13:36

component and a magnetic field component

13:38

and they're oscillating 90

13:40

degrees out of phase , or will they're

13:43

in phase 90 degrees with

13:45

each other ? So the frequency is

13:47

determining the amount of oscillation

13:50

. So , for example , wi-fi is

13:52

typically 2.4 gigahertz

13:54

, which is 2.4 billion wave cycles

13:57

or oscillations per second . So

13:59

that electric magnetic field component

14:01

is oscillating at that

14:03

speed and a microwave

14:05

works at a very similar

14:08

frequency and that oscillation

14:10

is how it's heating up your food , which is a great

14:12

example to discuss on

14:14

biological impacts is when you just look

14:16

at a microwave . But for

14:20

the most part when people measure EMFs

14:22

with an EMF meter , they

14:25

often see that there's an electric field component

14:27

, there's a magnetic field component of the

14:29

thing and they're

14:31

separated . And then there's a radio frequency

14:34

measurement as well . So radio

14:37

frequencies are still comprised

14:39

of the same exact components

14:41

. They're still electromagnetic waves , they're

14:43

just measured a bit differently . So

14:45

the radio frequency

14:47

is typically measured in a power

14:49

density reading and

14:52

that's taking both the magnetic and

14:54

the electric field component into

14:56

consideration . When you're measuring

14:59

the electric field of a power

15:01

outlet or transmission line , you're

15:03

typically isolating on just the electric

15:05

field component , which is measured in volts

15:08

per meter and then the magnetic field

15:10

component be measured separately in

15:12

typically micro-tessalus or milligalus

15:15

, which is a measure of magnetic flux density

15:17

actually . So it's just kind

15:19

of how things are measured . And the radio frequencies

15:22

are kind of lower in intensity

15:24

, so they take the power

15:27

measurement of them

15:29

to quantify them

15:31

. So that's pretty much the

15:33

difference and when you have an EMF meter

15:35

that's how they're typically separated

15:37

. But it's important to understand

15:39

that the electric field component is

15:42

a measure of voltage over

15:45

area , volts per meter . So

15:47

voltage and electric fields

15:49

are being created from

15:53

charges that are

15:55

just power , just voltage

15:57

in general , potential charge , potential

15:59

difference . So the best way

16:01

to create an analogy for this

16:04

is if you just have a lamp plugged

16:06

into your outlet but it's not turned on

16:08

, you will still have an electric field

16:10

being generated from that because there's

16:12

power to it . There would be no magnetic

16:15

field generated from the lamp itself

16:17

until it's turned on and current is

16:19

flying , because magnetic fields are generated from

16:22

moving charges and

16:24

that's described by current . So the

16:26

measurement of magnetic fields is taking

16:29

that into account . And then , yeah , radio frequencies

16:31

are measuring the power density . They're

16:34

typically far weaker , so they're

16:36

taking a power density component of it

16:38

. They're far weaker in intensity in terms of a

16:40

power perspective , but their photons

16:42

are far higher

16:45

energy than the

16:47

low frequency power

16:49

outlet electric and magnetic

16:51

fields . So it's a bit of nuance there , but I think that's

16:53

important for people to understand .

16:55

Yes , and I also want to make the point that

16:58

blue light isolated blue light

17:00

itself can be

17:02

conceived of as a non-native EMF

17:04

, because the light

17:06

that you get from the LED in your kitchen

17:08

as you're trying to maybe

17:11

cook dinner and it is not

17:14

blue light that is terrestrial

17:16

, the form that you would get from terrestrial

17:18

sunlight . So this idea

17:21

of non-native EMF

17:23

spans this visible and non-visible

17:25

spectrum and artificial

17:28

blue light , wi-fi , radio frequency 5G

17:30

, what we're about to talk about . They're

17:33

all equally foreign

17:35

to our biology . The

17:38

next point I want to make is that the

17:40

paradigm that we are

17:42

existing in is important

17:45

because To

17:47

use an understanding to

17:49

understand what's going on here , we need to be talking

17:52

in a language that relates to

17:54

biology , and

17:57

before the field of quantum biology there

18:00

wasn't I don't believe there was

18:02

a coherent way of framework

18:04

of understanding the health effects of non-native

18:06

EMF . If you're at

18:08

the level of biochemistry , if you're talking about merely

18:10

hormones and

18:13

hormonal action and biochemical

18:16

reactions , yes , you

18:18

can have a little bit of explanatory power , but

18:21

I really feel like the quantum biology

18:23

lens is what is actually needed

18:25

to really truly understand these biological

18:27

effects . Do you have any thoughts on that ?

18:31

Yeah , I think well

18:33

you could debate when quantum biology

18:35

really started . But I mean 100%

18:37

right , it's this overlap of

18:40

disciplines from a biophysics

18:42

perspective that's really needed to

18:45

understand , because electrical

18:48

engineers , physicists , they

18:50

understand electromagnetism , they understand technology

18:53

very well , but they don't understand anything about

18:55

biology . So they can't really make

18:57

the gap of knowledge that's

18:59

needed , the jump , I should say , to

19:02

use their knowledge on the technology

19:04

, the EM side of things , and then apply

19:07

that to how our body actually functions

19:09

. And then the same goes for

19:11

traditional people in the biology realm

19:13

. They don't have the physics or engineering background

19:15

to understand how this may have a detrimental effect

19:18

on our biology . And I see that

19:20

as one of the biggest gaps in

19:22

the world right now and that's why

19:24

I have taken , I guess you could say , a

19:26

stance , and I want to help

19:28

kind of communicate between

19:30

these two worlds , and I'm no expert

19:33

in biology or even the most knowledgeable

19:35

person from an engineering or EMF

19:37

perspective . There's PhD

19:40

physicists and electrical engineers

19:42

and then biologists who know way more than me , but almost

19:44

none of them pretty much none of them , talk

19:47

about or understand the relationship between

19:49

the two , and you really have to look at

19:51

some of the standout researchers

19:54

from the past 50 years , like

19:56

Robert O Becker and Gilbert Ling

19:58

and Alan Frey

20:01

and Emilio del Giudice and

20:03

a lot of these people that are kind

20:05

of like their anomalies , right , there's

20:08

a handful of them in the past

20:10

50 years . And then

20:12

, if you want to dive really into the quantum

20:15

side of things , well , it's also because quantum

20:17

physics has , you know

20:19

this , it's the black sheep

20:21

of science , right , like it's this . It's

20:23

this realm of science where we've

20:25

made such little progress

20:27

after a tremendous amount

20:30

of initial progress , because it's so

20:32

abstract , it's so mind

20:34

bending that you know , we're

20:36

kind of still like inching along

20:38

in terms of our understanding . So

20:40

it's , it's fascinating , but we

20:42

need more people focusing on these

20:45

disciplines and taking a holistic

20:47

perspective across , you know

20:49

, all of the areas of science

20:51

to . You know , push

20:53

, push it forward , but then simultaneously

20:56

, I think a big reason for that as well

20:58

is because of the centralized

21:01

clause of science and

21:03

academia that has really regulated

21:05

where funding goes , and I

21:07

talk about that quite a bit . So that's something

21:09

you know a more decentralized

21:11

lens or decentralized approach to

21:13

science , health and everything will

21:16

hopefully benefit going forward .

21:18

Yeah , and fundamentally , scientific breakthroughs

21:21

occur when intelligent people straddle

21:23

fields . They straddle fields of knowledge

21:25

and scientific endeavor and they make

21:27

connections that no one else has made . So

21:31

I agree that the future

21:33

is going to be more people using multiple

21:36

disciplinary approaches

21:38

in these fields , and I

21:41

really do share your optimism that

21:43

a decentralized approach is

21:45

how we're going to get there . But I'm

21:47

really insistent in the point

21:49

that we're anchoring this conversation in

21:52

physics and

21:54

biophysics and quantum biology , because

21:56

this is how we

21:58

push back on this idea

22:00

that these non-native EMFs

22:02

are benign or not harmful for

22:05

human health . So just

22:07

don't want to emphasize that point . So let's

22:09

talk about 5G and let's

22:11

talk about what it is and

22:14

how it's different

22:16

to existing sources of

22:18

radiofrequency pollution

22:21

maybe , if you want to use that word and

22:23

why it's so problematic .

22:26

Yeah for sure , 5g

22:29

has been heavily discussed . I feel like it

22:31

was very heavily discussed

22:34

around the COVID inception and then

22:36

it's kind of tapered off and it's actually

22:38

been surprising just doing a lot of research in

22:40

the past three to six months . There's

22:44

not a lot of new information out there and

22:46

that's because there's not a lot of people

22:48

really studying this . There's not a lot of people

22:50

talking about it anymore . But really

22:52

, what 5G is ? It's

22:54

fifth generation wireless technology . So

22:57

that's what the 5G stands for . It doesn't stand

22:59

for the frequency being used Like

23:01

. 5g does not mean 5 GHz

23:03

, although there are

23:05

some similarities there and we'll talk about that . And

23:08

every generation

23:10

we had 2G , we had 3G , we had 4G

23:13

, now we have 5G . The main

23:15

difference between each generation

23:17

and technology is really speed

23:20

and latency improvements and

23:22

that gives way to more

23:25

, I guess , usability

23:27

. From a technology perspective

23:30

. 4g was big

23:32

on streaming and hotspotting and now

23:34

5G is taking that to another

23:36

level and potentially setting

23:39

up the infrastructure for

23:41

smart cities , smart homes

23:43

, far more connected

23:45

devices to the internet , potentially

23:48

the bridge to autonomous vehicles

23:51

. That might be more of a 6G

23:53

thing , but it's basically pushing

23:55

the next level of speed and latency

23:57

and typically

24:00

it's around a factor of 10 improvement

24:02

from generation to generation

24:04

at least . So we're talking about

24:07

for 5G targeted peak

24:09

speeds of 20 Gbps

24:11

or 2.5 Gbps , and network latency is low as

24:13

1 ms , which is nothing , and

24:22

it's really the name

24:24

of the game . But every time they have

24:26

to do that , there's drastic

24:29

differences in the

24:31

infrastructure , the way they

24:34

are engineering the

24:36

radio frequency waves and

24:39

the whole 9 yard . So that's

24:41

where 5G really

24:44

stands out is how they

24:46

achieve these higher

24:48

speeds and lower latency times

24:50

to enable all of these new technologies and

24:54

4G coming from 3G

24:56

. It wasn't like that crazy of

24:58

a difference . I mean , they incorporated some

25:00

things . So 5G is tremendously different

25:03

from an infrastructure from

25:05

a frequency and

25:07

waveform perspective , and that's where

25:09

a lot of the engineering

25:12

and that's where a lot of the concern for our

25:14

health comes in , because we're charting

25:16

into newfound territories again

25:19

, once again .

25:21

Yeah , and you specifically mentioned in the past

25:23

this layering effect and how

25:25

you think about the harm of 5G

25:28

, which is the fact that we're

25:30

simply layering this new

25:32

technology

25:35

on top of existing , pre-existing

25:38

sources of radio frequency

25:40

emission , which we already rely

25:42

on in our daily life . So

25:44

talk about how

25:47

you conceive of that particularly .

25:50

Yeah , I mean every generation is really just

25:52

building on top of the previous generation

25:54

in terms of how it's structured

25:57

. So just because we have 5G

25:59

doesn't mean that 3G , 4g , infrastructure

26:02

and any of that is going

26:04

away . It's just kind of adding on

26:07

top . And especially for 5G

26:09

, it means it

26:11

really , by definition , is

26:13

a much more

26:15

targeted approach . It's definitely

26:17

not like the base layer of

26:20

communication Actually , the base layers

26:22

is probably going to stay very similar to

26:24

4G but then there's going to be

26:26

hot spots and just entirely

26:29

new engineering

26:31

design , entirely

26:33

new ways of communication that

26:35

we can get into . That makes it so different . But

26:38

yeah , it's just adding on top

26:40

. So there's no subtraction in

26:43

terms of our exposure , it's only

26:45

addition . And this is

26:47

resulting in just

26:49

an ever-increasing and up-and-to-the-right

26:51

exposure that's probably going to be

26:54

exponential for years to

26:56

come . And this is my biggest

26:58

concern is that we

27:00

can talk a lot about environmental toxic

27:02

exposures and , if you look across

27:04

the board , we're actually making pretty significant

27:07

headway in getting people

27:09

aware of food that

27:11

they eat . Exercise that's

27:13

been covered , even sunlight People

27:16

are more aware . But EMFs

27:19

mostly even from

27:21

a technology perspective , but also from

27:23

a blue light perspective is

27:25

just ever-increasing because our

27:27

use of technology is so

27:30

ubiquitous in society , and

27:32

it's also happening at a younger and younger age

27:34

, which is a major concern . So this

27:36

, to me , is the biggest environmental

27:39

toxin that has yet to be fully

27:41

addressed , and it's probably

27:43

never going to be , because it's propping

27:46

up our entire fiat economy , and

27:48

that's why I find

27:50

it so necessary to talk about and educate

27:53

about .

27:55

Yeah , it's the paradigm

27:58

that we're existing in is not incentivized to

28:00

talk about the harm of technology

28:03

which , as you say , is propping

28:05

up the function of society

28:08

and the

28:10

fact that telecommunications

28:13

networks rely

28:15

on quick transport

28:18

of data . There's always

28:20

going to be an ever pushing

28:22

incentive to develop this faster

28:25

and faster technology so you can walk

28:27

down the street streaming , you know , 4k

28:29

, 3d visual headset devices

28:32

. It's going to be relentless and

28:34

the as long as the incentive system

28:36

doesn't account for human

28:38

health impacts , then to

28:40

me that it's going to again can just

28:42

continue because there's

28:45

no incentive to prioritize

28:47

or consider human health . But before

28:50

we talk about the human and the biological

28:52

impacts of 5g , talk a little bit

28:54

about this beam and the beam forming

28:56

aspects of this

28:58

technology , because I think that's relevant

29:01

when we're talking about hot spots in

29:03

terms of where you don't want to live with

29:06

respect to 5g exposure .

29:10

Yeah , no , definitely , it's spot

29:12

on and yeah , that's why it's so important

29:14

what we do here . But yeah , why

29:16

is 5g so different from a technology perspective

29:18

? What ? What makes it able

29:21

to be so much faster ? And it comes

29:23

down to three things from the

29:25

electromagnetic waves that are used , and

29:27

then the infrastructure and and how they're using them . And

29:30

that's the frequency of the waves , what

29:32

you mentioned , the beam forming

29:34

of the waves and then how they're

29:36

setting up the antennas in

29:38

what's called a massive multiple

29:41

input , multiple output array . And

29:45

the frequency is really important

29:47

because that's what most people get , I

29:49

guess , interested in , that's what

29:51

most people are aware of and that's where we

29:53

can dive into the biology , biological

29:57

consequences of as well . So 5g

30:00

is a bit unique because it's using multiple

30:03

different frequency bands as

30:06

it pushes to use higher frequencies

30:08

. So the goal is

30:10

to use higher frequencies in

30:12

the millimeter wave spectra

30:14

of 20 to 50 gigahertz

30:17

. So this would be the first time that we're ever using

30:19

radio frequencies widespread

30:22

for public telecommunications

30:24

. In this frequency band it's

30:26

, you know , 10x higher than

30:29

where your Wi-Fi is that . So this is a pretty

30:31

big deal . And why do they

30:33

want to do that ? Because higher frequency allows for

30:36

higher data throughput . However

30:38

, there's a trade

30:40

off to be made with higher frequencies

30:43

, which is actually a good

30:45

thing for folks like us

30:47

, because it actually makes 5g

30:49

kind of easier to avoid , in my opinion

30:51

. But there's a lot of trade off because

30:53

of the higher frequency . There's

30:55

terrible range because there's high

30:58

free space loss due to

31:00

atmospheric gas absorption from

31:02

oxygen and water vapor , which we can talk

31:04

about , you know , foliage blockage

31:07

. There's precipitation

31:09

, attenuation , diffraction scattering

31:11

all across the board . Physical barriers

31:13

, even buildings , can

31:15

dissipate the 5g

31:18

millimeter waves quite a bit . So

31:20

really they need to

31:22

be much more clever with

31:24

the engineering in order to implement this . So

31:27

that's why , first off

31:29

, the millimeter waves probably only going to be used

31:31

in cities . But even

31:33

with all this being said , and that's

31:36

why you see so many towers

31:38

being installed , the repeater

31:40

towers this is a hallmark

31:42

of 5g . You maybe wonder

31:44

why they installing so many towers everywhere , like

31:46

literally every couple

31:48

hundred meters , few hundred , like every couple

31:51

city blocks , and that's because some of the signals

31:53

they literally can't go further than that . So

31:55

they need a constant tower

31:57

, repeater tower , to keep

31:59

the signal going . So that's the millimeter

32:02

wave aspect . We're talking again 20 to

32:04

50 gigahertz and that's

32:06

called the high band frequency range

32:09

for 5g . They have

32:11

a mid band and then they also have

32:13

a low band . So the low band frequency

32:16

is kind of in the , you know , 800

32:18

megahertz to one

32:21

one and a half gigahertz range , which is where

32:23

actually most of our

32:25

cellular communication is being used

32:28

today for 4g or

32:30

was being used for 4g . So this

32:32

is kind of almost the same stuff . They're

32:35

just calling it 5g and implementing

32:37

a slightly different way of using

32:39

that , but it's very similar to 4g . And

32:42

then there's mid band , which is kind of

32:44

this in between of like two to four

32:46

gigahertz for cellular communication , and

32:49

this is , I think , as of right

32:52

now , the most heavily used

32:54

, or at least by some of the carriers are trying to

32:56

use mid band frequency more and

32:58

more . And this is like the

33:00

sweet spot between performance and

33:02

, you know , range , I guess you

33:04

could say . And that's kind

33:06

of in that two , three , three and

33:08

a half gigahertz range . Now again , we

33:11

have used this frequency for

33:13

things like Wi-Fi , bluetooth , microwaves

33:15

are all at like 2.4 , 2.5

33:17

gigahertz . So it's not entirely different

33:19

. But again , you have to remember that cell

33:22

phones are , you know , the

33:24

largest source of RF radiation

33:27

by far on a daily basis

33:29

. They're much stronger than Wi-Fi . They're

33:31

, you know , 100 times plus stronger

33:34

than Bluetooth . You know your microwave

33:36

oven , you know you think that often . So

33:38

it's a big deal when it's a cell

33:40

phone bumping up a frequency and

33:43

thus energy level , and we

33:45

know that we're pretty much inseparable from

33:48

our cell phones . That's kind of

33:50

the difference in the frequency , but again

33:52

, there's a lot of these limitations

33:54

in terms of the range

33:57

, in terms of how far it can go . So

33:59

the engineers had to you know , they had to come up with

34:01

a completely different way of implementing

34:04

this , and what they're using

34:06

is called beamforming . So

34:08

4G is a very omnidirectional

34:11

wave . So the antenna is spitting

34:13

out the 4G signal

34:15

pretty much like 360 degrees

34:18

all around , all the time . There's

34:20

no specificity of it , it's

34:22

just there . And 5G

34:25

they can't really do that because

34:28

it's not going to work as well . There's

34:30

going to be a lot of signal interference , there's going to be

34:32

a lot of range issues . So they're

34:34

using what's called beamforming , which

34:36

is when they stack beams

34:38

for precision and higher

34:40

power and then they use a targeted

34:43

wave that's very narrow

34:45

in its diameter to

34:48

the receiver . So your cell phone is

34:50

the receiver , so if you have 5G

34:52

on , you're making a call . That wave

34:54

is basically just coming right at

34:56

you , right at your cell phone , and

34:59

if you're 50 feet away

35:02

or something like that , you wouldn't be

35:04

exposed to this 5G signal that

35:06

if I'm standing 50 feet away from

35:08

you , you make a call , I'm not being exposed

35:10

to that unless I'm in the

35:12

line of sight of the wave exactly . So

35:15

that's kind of the difference and it overcomes

35:17

some of the challenges with higher frequency

35:20

waves because they can be made

35:22

finer and

35:25

more precise , increasing that frequency

35:27

, but the result is they're

35:30

far , far higher power because

35:32

of that . And then the infrastructure

35:35

that I mentioned earlier a

35:37

massive multiple input , multiple

35:39

output arrays is basically

35:42

taking antenna arrays operating

35:46

in identical conditions to

35:48

create that very precise

35:50

narrow beam which targets the

35:53

end user directly and

35:55

that also helps . It kind

35:58

of works hand in hand with the beam forming

36:00

to be able to use

36:03

these higher frequencies . And

36:05

the massive or the multiple

36:07

input , multiple output was used in 4G , but just

36:09

not at the scale it's being used

36:12

for 5G and

36:14

this is kind of how

36:17

they're going about doing it , and to me

36:19

it's a blessing and a curse

36:21

, because if you do live

36:23

in a city and you're using

36:25

5G and everyone around

36:27

you is using 5G , you're going to be in

36:30

that path of the higher powered

36:32

beam , that higher frequency wave

36:34

. You're going to be exposed to that unavoidably

36:38

. However , if you don't and

36:41

you make a deliberate action to

36:43

not have 5G on your phone , to

36:45

live in the suburbs or in rural areas

36:47

, you're pretty much not going to be

36:49

exposed to 5G because if you don't

36:52

let it in , it's not going to get into

36:54

your house or to your phone or anything like

36:56

that . So to

36:58

me it really creates a completely

37:01

different scenario for folks living

37:04

in major cities and

37:06

being in downtown areas , being in airports

37:08

, being in entertainment venues , like

37:11

large groups of people

37:13

all on 5G all

37:15

at the same time . To me it's like

37:17

a major , major increase

37:20

in exposure compared to , you

37:22

know , if you're just living in the suburbs

37:24

and have a couple neighbors and most

37:26

of you are using 4G and they're

37:29

also never going to probably roll out millimeter

37:31

waves in the middle of nowhere

37:34

. So that's kind of the difference

37:36

and , yeah , just looking

37:38

at what they want to do with

37:40

smart cities and the fact that millimeter

37:42

waves haven't even been rolled out yet , like

37:45

really nobody's really

37:47

using them . It's only been kind of like tests

37:49

here still in 2024

37:51

. It's actually been underwhelming

37:53

, for I think the telecom companies

37:55

Like , I think people are actually

37:57

pretty disappointed in how much

38:01

millimeter waves have been used , but

38:03

it's almost giving folks more

38:05

time to get out of the city and

38:09

escape before it gets really bad . And

38:11

then you can look into what's coming

38:14

with things like 6G and

38:16

just the infrastructure of autonomous vehicles

38:18

, smart cities , smart homes , smart everything

38:21

. I mean I just really there's

38:24

no way I think living in a city

38:26

after the next

38:28

couple years will be a net

38:30

positive for your health at

38:32

all . It just won't even be possible

38:35

.

38:36

It's an interesting concept to think that

38:38

cities are going to be increasingly

38:41

inhabitable from a health point of view , compared

38:43

to , say , new York

38:45

in the 1980s , compared to

38:47

New York in 2026 . It's

38:50

going to be a different kettle of fish , based

38:53

on the EMF environment

38:55

, based on the density of

38:57

these repeater towers and

39:00

based on everything that we're talking

39:02

about . So it's

39:04

a concept that I don't

39:06

think a lot of people are thinking about , which

39:09

is , as technology advances

39:11

, the degree to which your

39:13

health could be impacted is

39:16

also basically accelerating , and it

39:18

needs to do more and more to mitigate or

39:21

to avoid those impacts . A

39:23

question about the device

39:25

usage . With 5G , say

39:28

, I have a phone that's 5G enabled

39:30

. If I turn off the 5G

39:32

functionality and decide to opt

39:35

only for 4G communications , am

39:37

I preventing that beam from essentially

39:39

being invited into my apartment or home ? Is

39:42

that how it works ?

39:43

From my understanding it should be . I

39:46

don't see why not , because if you're turning off

39:48

the 5G network , then

39:51

, yeah , your phone is not acting as the receiver

39:53

. So , again , it's

39:55

hard to measure and they don't really even

39:57

use the millimeter waves yet . But I

40:00

do that . I've been doing that for I

40:02

don't know a year and a half now before I even took a deep

40:04

dive because I'm like might as well , and

40:06

why do you ? Don't even need these download

40:08

speeds and pretty much the only time I'm

40:10

even using cellular data

40:13

is if I'm not at my home

40:15

and I really need to go on the internet or

40:17

something , if I'm traveling . But

40:19

on a day-to-day basis I'm almost

40:21

never using cellular data . So

40:24

something I recommend everyone do Even

40:27

if you just have Wi-Fi at your house

40:29

, turn your phone on airplane mode and

40:32

then only use the Wi-Fi . Why would

40:34

you have both on ? But

40:37

definitely , yeah , turn the 5G off . I

40:40

don't see why you would need it and

40:42

especially given the targeted approach

40:44

to the wave , I would , yeah

40:46

, I definitely recommend keeping that off .

40:49

You made a point about the absorption

40:52

of certain frequencies

40:55

by oxygen in the atmosphere

40:57

and in your podcast with Dr Jacuz

40:59

which I invite everyone to have a listen to if

41:01

you want to delve into the technicals

41:03

even more than this podcast he

41:06

mentioned that there is possibility

41:09

that the absorption of

41:11

these terrestrially generated

41:13

non-native EMFs is being

41:16

absorbed in the atmosphere and therefore

41:18

affecting the

41:21

basically the penetration of

41:23

the solar radiation

41:25

to the ground , implying

41:28

that if you live in an area that has

41:30

a massive density of EMF emissions say

41:33

Los Angeles , california

41:35

then it might even

41:37

be possible that you're getting less

41:39

ultraviolet yield in

41:42

that area compared to somewhere

41:44

without the same amount of EMF

41:47

basically pollution in

41:50

the area . Can you speak to that point

41:52

?

41:53

Yeah , it's a really interesting hypothesis

41:55

and I think it makes sense . Again

41:58

, it's kind of all just like things we

42:00

theorize . But I mentioned

42:03

as well about the fundamental

42:05

characteristics of 5G and why they

42:07

are so challenging from

42:10

an engineering perspective and it's because

42:12

they're extremely high dissipation

42:14

and absorption from atmospheric

42:16

gases like oxygen and water

42:18

vapor , and specifically

42:20

at certain frequencies like

42:22

24 GHz for water

42:25

vapor , 60 GHz for oxygen

42:27

, and it goes up from there

42:29

into the

42:31

150 GHz range

42:33

and then you can approach the Terahertz range and

42:36

it keeps increasing , which for 6G

42:38

is even scarier as we continue to push that

42:40

higher and higher . So it's

42:42

a major deterrent for these technologies

42:44

and why they have to use or

42:47

why they had to engineer the beams the way they

42:49

did . But yeah , I certainly

42:51

think it's plausible because it's all like

42:53

a competition for electromagnetic

42:56

waves and if the

42:58

atmospheric gases are kind

43:00

of absorbing all of that

43:02

electromagnetic energy

43:04

from 5G , from millimeter waves

43:07

, because once they're

43:09

bouncing around the atmosphere

43:12

potentially

43:14

that could lead to lower

43:16

UV yield and I think

43:18

it's very plausible . I

43:21

think in general it's just going to

43:23

be a concern from

43:25

all facets of how that

43:28

affects our biology and

43:31

to me . I'm even concerned

43:33

about what is the impact

43:36

on the oxygen and the water

43:38

in our biology , because

43:41

obviously those are extremely important

43:43

for our mitochondria , for

43:46

cellular health across the

43:48

board . So if these

43:50

gases are absorbing

43:52

electromagnetic waves in

43:54

this frequency range at such a high

43:56

level , or even a far higher

43:58

level compared to , say , 3g

44:01

and 4G waves , what is that

44:03

doing to the oxygen

44:05

and water in our biology ? And

44:08

that's where I get really concerned

44:11

. And again goes back

44:13

to the argument that non-ionizing

44:15

radiation has an effect

44:18

on our biology . But we just don't

44:20

really understand it . And

44:22

it's not at the same level that sunlight

44:24

is having on our biology . Because photon

44:27

, you know exciting electrons

44:30

it's a very specific biological

44:33

process and interaction where

44:35

the energy level has to be

44:37

exact to excite an electron

44:39

. So now we have all these photons

44:42

that are lower energy levels . Now

44:44

, people that have no understanding

44:46

of biology would say that they would have zero

44:48

impact . But then how come ? There's thousands

44:50

of research studies showing impact . And

44:53

then you can simply go back to the microwave

44:56

, right , like , how does a microwave heat

44:59

our food ? Because

45:01

the 2.45 gigahertz oscillation

45:03

or frequency

45:06

is jostling the water

45:08

molecules in the food and

45:10

that's due to the dipole moment of the

45:12

water , right ? Well , what is happening

45:15

in our body . What is our body

45:17

made of ? You know , 60% , 75% water

45:19

, and that

45:21

, to me , is the more important area

45:24

to really dive down and it's

45:26

something that everybody in the central

45:28

eyes , like any of these YouTube physicists

45:30

, these people with big platforms , they dismiss

45:33

right off the bat and it's fair , but

45:36

they're just not considering the entire other

45:38

aspect of how our biology functions , from

45:41

an oscillation , from a frequency , from

45:43

an EMF perspective , that it

45:45

doesn't necessarily have to be the direct

45:47

route of , like photon , excitation

45:49

of electrons .

45:51

Yeah , and I'm going to single out Neil deGrasse , tyson

45:54

and I told my god yeah I recorded

45:57

with Scott Zimmerman again recently , who's

45:59

a an optics engineer and

46:01

an expert in the effect of in

46:04

near infrared and infrared light , on on biology

46:06

, and Neil deGrasse Tyson , basically

46:08

, was smugly

46:11

and self congratulating

46:13

the progress of human technology

46:15

, that we managed to create a

46:18

light and popularized light that gets rid

46:20

of this highly inefficient band

46:22

of sunlight called

46:25

infrared , because we don't need it and it's unnecessary

46:27

. When he is , you know , it's a bit done

46:30

in Kruger moment , because he has just no concept

46:32

of how critical infrared light

46:34

is for mitochondrial biology and melatonin

46:36

production and and

46:39

all these things and and the arrogance

46:41

of not knowing what he doesn't know is that's

46:43

the most galling part of it all . I mean , have

46:45

some humble you know some some humility

46:48

about it . But yeah

46:50

, that's the problem with centralized science and , if

46:52

you are , funding relies on having

46:54

a certain set of beliefs

46:56

or asking a certain set of bounded questions

46:58

, and then that's what's going to get

47:00

researched and that's what's going to get published . So

47:02

and Maybe let's talk

47:05

about the health effects of of

47:07

radio frequency and 5g . How

47:10

do you think about what is happening

47:12

? And and we'll come back to this idea of

47:14

the effect of them on the water pickers

47:16

I'm gonna make a point about that , but talk

47:19

about in general what's going on with

47:21

health and 5g .

47:24

Yeah , the Neil deGrasse Tyson stuff

47:26

is is so frustrating . I don't know why I

47:28

always get recommended these clowns on like

47:30

YouTube . That's just like always in my

47:32

feed and I watched some last night

47:34

on On microwaves and him explaining

47:36

to Joe Rogan about how a microwave

47:39

is like completely safe and it's just frequency

47:41

, it's just oscillation and it's

47:44

so funny . But you know you don't know

47:46

what you don't know . But when you're arrogant about

47:48

it , Yep , that's

47:50

how it goes , and .

47:51

But the reason why I take such exception

47:54

is because if you have that attitude of medicine , then

47:56

people get hurt . Oh , yeah

47:58

. I remember the . You

48:00

know , one of my most Confrontational

48:03

clinical learning experiences when I was a medical student

48:05

was a , an old surgeon and he was asking

48:08

me a question and I Came up with some

48:10

wild guess of kind of

48:12

almost an arrogant guess , pretending that

48:14

I knew more than I did . And he pulled

48:16

me up and he said to me if

48:18

you don't know , then say you don't know

48:20

because and we all make

48:23

mistakes and Everyone makes makes

48:25

mistakes , no matter what your level is but if you're

48:27

not acknowledging the limits of your knowledge , then that's

48:29

how people get hurt and that's how Adverse

48:31

events happen . So after that point

48:34

and and I had a concept of it before

48:36

but even after that point I've been Incredibly

48:39

mindful of when I don't know something

48:41

because and that is when we can do

48:43

E atrogenic harm as doctors and , I think collectively

48:46

, scientists too we really

48:48

have to be mindful of the limits of our

48:50

knowledge .

48:52

Yeah , yeah , but the problem is that they think they

48:54

know . So , like you said , it's even more harmful

48:57

. But yeah , it's , it's sad

48:59

, but you know , we can try and just keep trying

49:02

to educate folks and bring them over and

49:04

it's Getting right into the health stuff

49:06

. For me what's crazy is that there's

49:08

so much data , ever all these centralized

49:10

people are so evidence-based but

49:12

they're ignoring so much evidence . I

49:14

mean , there is dr Henry

49:16

lie has 2500

49:18

studies on the effects of non-AtoB

49:21

MF exposure on biology

49:23

, on our biology well , or

49:25

on the biology of life on this planet

49:27

, and a lot

49:29

of that is Based in

49:31

the radio frequency range . And

49:33

you know , I always point to this is like the first

49:35

thing that I always tell people is like this guy

49:38

has a database of like 2500

49:40

studies that are showing harmful effects . Like

49:42

80 to 90 percent of them

49:44

are showing a harmful biological effects

49:46

. Most of them are a quite

49:48

fair bit , have far lower

49:51

Power intensities

49:53

than the safety limits and

49:55

we can get into that that are

49:58

imposed by the United States , australia

50:00

, most Western countries . So that's a huge

50:02

concern . But this is all ignored

50:04

. Every study has been like debunked for

50:07

maybe one specific reason . But

50:09

when there's such an overwhelming body

50:11

of evidence . You know how can you

50:13

possibly ignore this ? And

50:15

this goes back to the children's

50:17

health defense which

50:19

Robert F Kennedy Jr is a part of presiding

50:23

attorneys suing the FCC

50:25

for their outdated guidelines on

50:27

Radio frequency Limits

50:31

which they haven't updated since the mid 90s

50:33

basically since like my entire

50:35

lifetime and they were set even before

50:37

then . So it's pretty crazy

50:40

. But you know , when you talk about 5g

50:42

, there's very limited research

50:44

on on 5g and we'll get into that and

50:46

you kind of have to extrapolate . But

50:48

if there's so many studies on 2g

50:51

, 3g or just similar frequency

50:53

, radio frequency or radio frequency radiation

50:55

exposure , you know you could

50:57

make the educated assumption that

50:59

5g is going to be Similarly

51:01

harmful or if not more harmful

51:04

, due to its higher energy photons

51:06

and directed high-power beam that

51:09

we just discussed . So yeah , dr Henry

51:11

lie , highly recommend checking his work . He

51:14

, you know , has this collection and the summary

51:16

. Let's see . You know , 90%

51:19

of over 300 studies

51:21

that looked at the effects of

51:23

radio frequency on oxidative

51:26

stress found significant biological

51:28

effects and 96%

51:30

of those studies that had a

51:32

specific absorption rate below 0.4

51:35

watts per kilogram found

51:37

significant effects . So that's one

51:40

fourth the SAR

51:42

limit that is imposed in the United

51:44

States and almost no cell

51:46

phones are below 0.4 watts

51:48

per kilogram . Some are better

51:51

than others , but the limit is

51:53

1.6 watts per kilogram . So

51:57

that's one I always point to . One

51:59

we talked about in the Jack Cruz podcast

52:01

is the national toxicology

52:04

program study , or the NTP study

52:06

. And again , what dr

52:08

Henry lies work before I talk about NTP

52:10

is big on oxidative stress

52:12

. It's big on , you know , the jet , genetic

52:15

effects , gene expression

52:17

, neurological effects , cardiovascular

52:20

effects and then reproduction and

52:22

development , or , you know

52:24

, fertility . So these are the big areas

52:27

where EMF has a tremendous impact

52:29

on our biology is , you know

52:31

, at the mitochondrial level , at

52:33

the cardiovascular level , the neurological

52:36

level and the reproductive system

52:38

levels . Why ? Because those are

52:41

the most energy intensive areas

52:43

of our body . That's where we have

52:45

the most mitochondria , it's

52:47

the biggest priority , and we know

52:49

that mitochondrial function is , you

52:51

know , based in electromagnetism . So

52:54

it's no surprise to me why

52:57

these are kind of the most common

52:59

side effects and also the most common

53:01

, you know , chronic diseases as well in

53:04

Modern society . But getting

53:06

to the NTP study , this one is

53:09

really interesting and again it's impossible

53:11

to ignore because they spent 10

53:14

years and 30 million dollars studying

53:16

, studying cell phone radiation

53:19

of 2g and 3g origin in

53:23

the Frequency range of 700

53:25

megahertz to 2.7

53:27

gigahertz on rats and mice

53:29

, specifically looking at like cancer

53:32

and and DNA damage

53:34

risks . And yeah , they found . Well

53:37

, they exposed these rats and mice for

53:39

for two years , around nine hours a

53:41

day , and they found clear evidence

53:43

of association with tumors

53:46

in the hearts of rats . Some

53:48

evidence of association again you know how like

53:50

this wording works with association and

53:52

evidence In with tumors

53:55

and in the brains and adrenal glands , significant

53:58

increase in DNA damage in the

54:00

brains and blood cells

54:02

of rice and or sorry

54:04

, mice and rats . And yeah

54:07

, this was , this has

54:09

been out for a few years now and

54:11

pretty much is a big deal In

54:14

terms of cementing the cancer

54:16

risk and DNA damage risk of cell phone

54:18

radiation . But again , you'll always

54:20

have your Detractors of

54:22

the study saying you know , the power

54:24

intensity was , you know , far higher

54:27

than what we're exposed

54:29

to on a daily basis , which isn't entirely

54:31

true . It's like it was like slightly higher

54:33

. So then there's another

54:35

Study called the Ramazzini

54:37

study , which was done in Italy by this Institute

54:40

, that basically wanted to replicate

54:42

what the NTP study

54:45

did , except at a lower

54:47

power intensity . So far field

54:49

exposure to radio frequencies instead of near

54:51

field , using 1.8

54:54

gigahertz , same , you know , rats being

54:56

used looking at cancer tumor

54:59

risk , and they found also

55:02

a statistically significant increase

55:04

in incident of heart Schwannomas

55:07

. And that's at a lower

55:09

, frequent , or sorry , a lower power intensity

55:12

. And Again , it

55:14

basically just reiterated the findings of the

55:16

NTP study . So you know

55:18

, I Don't understand

55:20

how , even if the power intensity is

55:22

like slightly higher , even if the duration

55:24

might be slightly longer it depends how

55:26

much you use a cell phone how

55:29

could you ignore this body of evidence

55:31

? How could you , you know , be

55:33

so confident that there's no health

55:35

risk when there is

55:37

clear evidence of , you know

55:40

, increased cancer risk , increased DNA

55:42

damage , reproductive issues , neurological

55:45

issues , oxidative stress , and

55:47

even if it's not exactly Studied

55:50

in how you would use it or

55:52

you know how often you would use it

55:54

, there's clear evidence that this

55:56

stuff is very detrimental for biology

55:59

of mammals and there are some studies

56:01

in humans which are more epidemiological based

56:03

. So we know the issues there . And why

56:06

would you not at least want to use

56:08

Caution with technology

56:11

? That's all we're really asking . Is that

56:13

be more skeptical , skeptical

56:16

, and then maybe we could have even better research

56:18

, or maybe we could even design

56:20

technology , engineer technology

56:22

in a better way

56:24

so that the radiation is

56:26

lower and we don't even have to have these debates

56:29

. We could just have safer

56:31

technology . But that would be a very

56:33

inconvenient truth for a lot

56:35

of people and that's why all this research has

56:37

been swept under the rug , even though

56:39

to me it's pretty much undeniable

56:41

.

56:43

Yeah , and I'm going to quickly read out

56:45

one of the abstracts

56:47

of one of the papers in Henry

56:49

Lye's database and

56:51

I'm also going to include this link so

56:53

that people can read this . But

56:58

in his list of papers

57:00

that include the effects of radiofrequency

57:04

radiation on oxidative stress . So

57:06

it seems like most of these studies are done

57:08

in rats and mice and

57:10

that makes sense because they are an animal

57:13

model , they're easy to experiment

57:15

on and you can address

57:17

more hard endpoints . So just

57:20

one of the titles of one of these papers is

57:22

comparison of effects of 2.4

57:24

gigahertz Wi-Fi and mobile phone exposure

57:27

on human placenta and cord blood . Oh

57:29

, sorry that one is that one is on

57:31

an extractive of cord blood and

57:33

what they found in conclusion ? The results

57:35

of this study indicated that mobile phone exposure

57:38

during pregnancy could have important potential

57:40

to cause oxidative stress and DNA damage

57:42

in cord blood and placenta . The results

57:44

of this study also indicated that combined effects of

57:46

Wi-Fi plus mobile phone exposure have

57:49

a higher potential to cause synergistic

57:51

harmful effects . I mean , if

57:53

we're thinking about complications

57:55

that occur in pregnancy from the

57:57

first trimester , first

57:59

trimester , miscarriage , all

58:01

the way through to third trimester

58:04

, preeclampsia , all

58:06

kinds of complications

58:09

that occur you wonder to what degree

58:11

, that simple oxidative stress from

58:14

mom sitting with a 5G enabled

58:16

device next to the Wi-Fi router

58:18

, next to a pregnant belly , what that could be having

58:21

. So the fact is that there

58:23

is a lot of evidence in this list

58:25

and even if it is in

58:28

rats or non-human

58:31

mammals , I think we need

58:33

to use this precautionary principle

58:35

to realize that it's

58:38

going to be having this similar effect in humans

58:40

. And the key point that I want to make

58:42

is that an absence of evidence of harm is

58:44

not evidence of absence of harm . So

58:46

just because we lack a specific

58:49

gospel chiseled

58:51

tablet carried down

58:53

from the mountain by Moses saying

58:56

that 5G is harmful , we

58:58

don't need that . We can infer the

59:00

damage by extrapolating the

59:02

harmful effects of lower frequency

59:05

technology in

59:07

mammals and then realizing

59:09

, well , if you jack it up in the

59:11

form of 5G , then it's just going to have a

59:13

more damaging effect . But

59:17

the point here also , tristan , is that it's

59:19

common for industry to use obfuscating techniques

59:21

, and

59:23

the seminal book on this tactics

59:25

was Merchants of Doubt , where

59:28

it explained how the tobacco industry

59:30

was using specific techniques

59:33

regarding this

59:36

, creating this idea that there's a

59:38

lack of consensus , and they used that

59:40

to kind of obfuscate what was going

59:42

on and dilute out the message

59:44

. But as for anyone

59:47

who is concerned about their health , I agree

59:49

with you that there's more than enough evidence from

59:51

an oxidative stress point of view

59:53

in these mitochondrial rich organs that

59:55

we need to be being very , very

59:57

careful with our exposures .

1:00:00

Yeah , it's just like crazy

1:00:02

. In my EMF 101

1:00:05

course I go over some of these studies

1:00:07

and there's reviews on Wi-Fi

1:00:09

, there's reviews all over the place

1:00:11

. It's just so undeniable and

1:00:13

, like you said , the obfuscation

1:00:16

is real and

1:00:19

it's like if we had a safety limit of

1:00:21

like 8

1:00:23

or 10 alcoholic drinks per day and

1:00:25

then all the research that

1:00:27

people are kind

1:00:29

of condemning as not convincing

1:00:32

is because it's at 11

1:00:34

or 12 drinks per day and then

1:00:36

5 to 7 drinks per day is no issue , and

1:00:39

there is research that is way lower

1:00:41

than the safety limits as well . So I mentioned

1:00:43

that and you can look at the database

1:00:46

there . I want to give credit

1:00:48

to these researchers as well Dr

1:00:50

Martin Powell , dr Henry Lye actually

1:00:53

, dr Henry Lye , I'm pretty sure got in

1:00:55

some issues with

1:00:57

industry , because he was

1:01:00

just a guy who stumbled upon this and was like

1:01:02

oh my God , this is insane that

1:01:04

there's so much evidence and nobody's talking about this

1:01:06

, and I'm pretty sure he got

1:01:08

some , you know , knocked

1:01:11

on his door . Yeah , he got some

1:01:13

knocks on his door because he exposed

1:01:15

a lot of this and it is overwhelming . And then

1:01:17

, yeah , you get people like RFK talking

1:01:19

about on Joe Rogan , and still there's

1:01:22

nothing . There's winning

1:01:24

lawsuits and there's still no

1:01:27

change . And again , if I know

1:01:29

, like Jack said this on our podcast and

1:01:31

people probably would agree , you know , if

1:01:33

there was better warning labels

1:01:36

, if there was better education , it

1:01:39

would be . At least you know they did their due

1:01:41

diligence of letting us know . But acting

1:01:43

in this state of ignorance is wild . And

1:01:46

they actually do have manufacturing warning

1:01:48

labels on all cell phones that

1:01:51

you should never hold them up against your body

1:01:53

directly and that you should always use hands-free

1:01:55

speakerphone or wired headphones

1:01:57

, but they don't publicize that

1:01:59

and nobody really takes that with

1:02:02

any merit . So it's just , it's

1:02:05

delusion on all levels .

1:02:07

Yeah , and not only the funding is not there

1:02:09

to research human effects , but I wonder

1:02:11

to what degree some

1:02:14

of these studies would be confounded by the fact

1:02:16

that even your controls are going to be exposed

1:02:18

to a fair bit of background

1:02:21

radiation . And you know Tucker Goodrich makes

1:02:23

the point when he's specifically

1:02:25

talking about the harm of seed oils is , if

1:02:27

you compare the harm , hypothetically

1:02:29

speaking , if you compare someone

1:02:32

smoking two packs of cigarettes a day to

1:02:34

someone smoking five cigarettes a day , but

1:02:37

the threshold effect is , you know , one cigarette a day , then

1:02:40

how are you going to be able to necessarily detect

1:02:42

a difference between those groups ? So

1:02:44

I think there's

1:02:47

a class of people that seem to

1:02:49

lab called intellectual , yet idiots . And

1:02:51

if anyone hasn't read the Black Swan by

1:02:54

an assim to lab or any of the

1:02:56

same clubs work , I would highly recommend reading it . But

1:02:58

there's a class of people who essentially

1:03:01

believe that an absence

1:03:03

of evidence equals the evidence of absence

1:03:05

. And they're the type of people

1:03:08

you know , the kid that

1:03:10

sits at the front of the class and putting

1:03:12

this hand up all the time who are

1:03:15

enforcing this , these

1:03:19

narratives about you know it's safe

1:03:21

to continue , and not only

1:03:23

with with EMFs , but a

1:03:26

whole bunch of other topics , like

1:03:28

the harm of glyphosate in health

1:03:30

and maybe some other topics

1:03:32

that we're not going to talk about on this podcast . But

1:03:37

the fact is that when you conflate

1:03:39

those key points , when you think

1:03:41

that just because we don't have some degree

1:03:44

arbitrary degree of evidence quality

1:03:46

and maybe that's an randomized control trial

1:03:49

before we can act , then you

1:03:51

really missing a

1:03:53

lot and you're potentially

1:03:55

missing massive harm and

1:03:57

you just to wait for some kind of

1:03:59

piece of evidence that will satisfy

1:04:02

you . So I just want to make that

1:04:04

point that when it comes to

1:04:06

reproductive health and transgenerational

1:04:08

epigenetics , the , in

1:04:10

my mind , the threshold

1:04:12

of evidence to act is

1:04:14

so low that

1:04:17

it's this is all moot . We have

1:04:19

more than enough evidence to

1:04:21

act based on the fact

1:04:23

that when you screw this up , you

1:04:26

can have these transgenerational effects .

1:04:30

Yeah , yeah , I mean there's no

1:04:33

incentive to change anything

1:04:35

, so it doesn't even matter . We could

1:04:37

have a thousand more studies and I don't think it

1:04:39

would matter until until

1:04:41

there's lawsuits . There's people suing

1:04:43

people and there's like extreme . I

1:04:45

mean , you see it . You mentioned the glyphosate . You see

1:04:47

it with with that , because the only

1:04:49

people that have been successful

1:04:51

in that realm is the non

1:04:54

Hodgkin's lymphoma with the at

1:04:56

home glyphosate use . But because

1:04:58

of all the confounding factors in

1:05:01

you know , ag use of herbicides

1:05:03

and pesticides , there's no way they can prove

1:05:06

causality , so there's no chance

1:05:08

it would ever be banned in like a judicial

1:05:10

setting . And yeah , it's the problem

1:05:12

with everything . And you could argue that any research

1:05:15

, you know , you see all these research studies

1:05:17

. You see , like the Lane Norton's and those

1:05:20

folks of the world talking about all these studies Well

1:05:22

, are they controlling for EMFs

1:05:24

and blue light and all of this stuff ? No , so

1:05:27

, like we always say , you know you

1:05:29

could pry , toss out 90 to 95%

1:05:31

of research , but you have to , you

1:05:33

know , pick and choose where some

1:05:36

of the information is helpful and realize

1:05:38

the greater picture , the greater flaws

1:05:41

with , with centralized science .

1:05:43

Yeah , and that that you know

1:05:45

. They know , and that's a great example of someone who

1:05:48

is semiopically focused on

1:05:50

, you know , what is written in a , in a piece

1:05:52

of research and

1:05:54

is unable to critically appraise the

1:05:57

, the drawbacks or the methodological

1:06:01

flaws and or see things

1:06:03

in the context of , I think , an

1:06:05

ancestral lens , because if you assume

1:06:08

that whatever we evolved with , what

1:06:10

is an sexually appropriate , is biologically

1:06:13

necessary and programmed , then

1:06:15

I think that provides , in the absence

1:06:17

of certainty , that provides you a very

1:06:19

good fallback , heuristic about what

1:06:22

to do and how to expose ourselves

1:06:24

to and what to avoid exposing ourselves to . But

1:06:26

this intellectual yet idiot mindset

1:06:29

which is scientism

1:06:31

, it's scientism and , to

1:06:33

make that point , it's the almost worship

1:06:36

of of science is this kind of quasi

1:06:38

religious practice without critically

1:06:41

and very skeptically

1:06:43

combing through it ? You

1:06:45

were just . You know you're misleading yourself

1:06:47

and misleading others . So I really like

1:06:49

your approach , tristan , I think we're on the exact

1:06:51

same page about the limits of knowledge

1:06:54

, the limits of science and what

1:06:56

should be our default position in the absence

1:06:58

of knowledge , and that's the evolutionary

1:07:00

principle in my mind .

1:07:03

Yeah , I mean we just

1:07:05

yield caution , right , like I mean anyone

1:07:07

listening to this . It's your life

1:07:09

, like you know . That's the decentralized model as

1:07:11

well . Like we , I'm not going to tell you what to do

1:07:14

. You can use your technology however you want , but

1:07:16

you should be entitled to having

1:07:18

some sort of information that

1:07:21

this may be harmful , and then you

1:07:23

can read the research and make your own conclusions

1:07:26

about what's best for you and your family . But at

1:07:28

least understanding that

1:07:30

this exists is very

1:07:32

important .

1:07:33

Before , and thank you for

1:07:35

the listeners for listening to us both , matt , on

1:07:37

this , on this very important topic . But

1:07:40

maybe , before we move on about some practical

1:07:42

steps to mitigating 5G , let's talk

1:07:44

about this mitochondria , and I

1:07:47

want to make the point in a way that maybe

1:07:49

my medical colleagues who listen to this podcast

1:07:52

can relate to , which is the

1:07:54

fact that radio frequency alters

1:07:56

the spin of

1:07:59

hydrogen and the

1:08:01

reason why they will

1:08:03

in one way that they can understand

1:08:05

, that is the MRI machine and the fact

1:08:07

that using a radio frequency pulse

1:08:09

basically causes

1:08:12

those protons . It would affect the way

1:08:14

that they they spin so , and

1:08:17

that's how we use , when you harness

1:08:19

that technology to capture

1:08:21

MRI imaging for diagnosis and treatment

1:08:23

. So talk a little

1:08:25

bit about what do you think , what you think is occurring

1:08:27

on a molecular

1:08:30

level when , when we

1:08:32

think about RF and EMF , yeah

1:08:36

, it's it .

1:08:36

This is a tricky one and it's one that's like

1:08:39

, yeah , like almost groundbreaking research

1:08:41

. I watched some videos in the past

1:08:43

week actually that new research has come

1:08:45

out . It's based , proving

1:08:48

that all of our cells are oscillating

1:08:50

at specific frequencies . Right

1:08:52

, and I know

1:08:55

Doug Wallace has talked about , you know , 100

1:08:57

Hertz being like a very important oscillation

1:08:59

frequency for the mitochondria . But

1:09:01

the video I watched was

1:09:04

talking about breast cells is actually what

1:09:06

they used in this study and they found that

1:09:08

I think they're oscillating at 10 to 30

1:09:10

kilohertz and some of them as high as in

1:09:12

the megahertz range . So our

1:09:14

biology is innately based

1:09:17

in oscillation and

1:09:19

frequency and , going

1:09:21

back to the microwave example , radio

1:09:23

frequencies will disturb

1:09:26

that , they will alter that , and you

1:09:28

know so much of our biology is rooted

1:09:31

in water and we know

1:09:33

that water has these coherent

1:09:35

domains as well from judice's

1:09:37

work that emit and absorb

1:09:39

, basically acting like an antenna for

1:09:42

electromagnetic fields . So

1:09:44

any exposure to non native

1:09:46

EMFs , to radio frequencies , is

1:09:48

going to alter that oscillation

1:09:51

, alter the coherent domain of the

1:09:53

water , which is going to affect a

1:09:55

lot of things . And one of the main you

1:09:58

know aspects that people can easily

1:10:00

attest to is that EMFs

1:10:04

, especially high EMF areas

1:10:06

, radio frequencies they cause dehydration

1:10:08

. I mean , if you ever take a flight , you

1:10:10

know that you get super dehydrated

1:10:13

. That's why so many people

1:10:15

are always reaching for the next

1:10:17

glass of water . It doesn't help that they're drinking garbage

1:10:20

water as well , but it's because

1:10:22

Alcohol . Yeah , or

1:10:24

alcohol , or so much caffeine just to

1:10:26

have enough to get through the day , because they have

1:10:28

just such dysfunctional mitochondria

1:10:31

. But

1:10:33

this is really disrupting

1:10:35

how water is functioning in our biology

1:10:37

. It's disrupting the production of

1:10:39

metabolic water at complex

1:10:41

four , like you mentioned . It's

1:10:44

altering proton interactions . It's

1:10:47

altering the ability

1:10:50

for exclusion zone to be

1:10:52

formed Gerald Pollock has talked about how

1:10:54

Wi-Fi can collapse the exclusion zone

1:10:56

. And then when we don't have

1:10:58

proper hydration , we don't

1:11:01

have properly functioning semiconductors

1:11:03

, because our biological semiconductors

1:11:05

all need to be hydrated to

1:11:07

function very well . And it's all

1:11:10

kind of this synergistic approach

1:11:12

. And again it goes back to the

1:11:14

fact that these are all areas

1:11:16

of our biology that centralized

1:11:18

medicine has no clue about

1:11:20

, no interest in researching

1:11:22

, and that is

1:11:25

really imperative . And it's completely

1:11:27

a different effect than the direct impact

1:11:29

of photons , exciting

1:11:32

electrons , like we know from the photoelectric

1:11:34

effect from sunlight and then ionizing

1:11:37

radiation as well , from Compton scattering

1:11:39

and things like that . But to me

1:11:41

that's really where

1:11:44

a lot of this dysfunction is happening is its

1:11:46

effect on water . And

1:11:48

then from Dr Martin Powell's work , who's

1:11:51

one of the other fantastic researchers

1:11:53

, we have this effect on

1:11:55

the voltage-gated channels , which

1:11:57

he thinks is kind of like the voltage-gated

1:12:00

calcium channels is the most upstream

1:12:02

impact on how EMFs

1:12:04

are affecting our biology . I

1:12:06

think it's multifaceted and

1:12:09

it's . A big part of that

1:12:11

is the water story , but it all

1:12:13

comes back to kind of a multifaceted

1:12:16

approach . Jack mentioned

1:12:18

on our podcast it's

1:12:20

ending the life where it's causing

1:12:23

dysfunction in our

1:12:25

semiconductor functions

1:12:28

and the ability to

1:12:30

have proper redox potential and

1:12:33

hydration , which is all

1:12:36

synergistic in how our

1:12:38

body needs to optimally function

1:12:40

, and that's all rooted in the mitochondria

1:12:42

as well .

1:12:44

Yeah , the Martin-Paul and the voltage-gated calcium

1:12:46

channel story . That's just one aspect to

1:12:48

it and maybe more of a biochemical kind

1:12:51

of aspect to what's going on and

1:12:53

this idea that these EMFs

1:12:55

are inducing basically constitutive

1:12:58

opening of the voltage-gated calcium channels

1:13:00

and causing a very

1:13:02

inappropriately raised amount

1:13:05

of intracellular calcium . And

1:13:07

mitochondria know and they sense that

1:13:10

they rely on calcium as a critical

1:13:12

signal to modulate pathways

1:13:14

like apoptosis of

1:13:17

the cell . It's all a very , very intricately

1:13:20

linked homostatic

1:13:23

mechanism to do with the

1:13:25

cell and its mitochondria and

1:13:27

signals . So mess that up

1:13:29

with something like the

1:13:31

EMF and there you go , you've

1:13:34

got more propensity for the cell

1:13:36

to apoptose . The other aspect

1:13:38

I liked your summary of what's

1:13:41

going on with water . Dr

1:13:43

Doug Wallace has talked about and

1:13:45

Cruz as well have talked about this

1:13:48

idea of mitochondria's environmental

1:13:50

senses and it makes complete

1:13:54

sense to me in my mind that

1:13:56

if they were

1:13:58

bacteria , we know that they were ancestral

1:14:00

bacteria . They've been on this planet for billions

1:14:02

of years and don't think

1:14:04

for a moment that they haven't evolved to

1:14:07

adapt to the background

1:14:09

electromagnetic environment . I

1:14:12

mean of course they have and of course they're

1:14:14

able to sense that . I mean that makes intuitive

1:14:16

sense to me that they're adapted and sensing

1:14:19

the human resonance , the obviously

1:14:21

the terrestrial sunlight , the

1:14:24

difference between night and day and the effect that

1:14:26

, say , infrared light has on the melatonin production

1:14:28

. But I think that when

1:14:30

you chuck in these profoundly

1:14:33

different EMF signature , these

1:14:38

man-made sources , then the

1:14:40

mitochondria are sensing them . There's no , the

1:14:42

way that they're not , and I think it's therefore

1:14:45

just moot to be exactly how

1:14:49

they're disrupting and to what

1:14:51

degree is that combining with other

1:14:53

things ? And

1:14:56

to zoom out , I want to put this in context . We've got all

1:14:58

these other mitochondrial toxins attacking us at the same

1:15:00

time . We've got the

1:15:02

isolated blue light and the lack of outside

1:15:05

sunlight . We've got things

1:15:08

like deuterium , excess deuterium in our food

1:15:10

and glyphosate contamination

1:15:12

that's preventing us from deplete the deuterium

1:15:14

. And we've got high

1:15:16

carb seed oil , high fructose

1:15:19

corn syrup diet . That

1:15:21

again is plant wrecking havoc

1:15:23

on mitochondrial function . So to

1:15:26

layer the EMF environment

1:15:28

on top of everything else . I think that's

1:15:31

why you're getting a disproportionate

1:15:33

effect in today's day and age when

1:15:35

it comes to these complex diseases like

1:15:37

Alzheimer's , neurodegeneration , cancer

1:15:39

, autoimmunity and metabolic

1:15:42

disease , because the mitochondria are basically getting

1:15:44

kicked on the ground in a sack from all angles

1:15:47

.

1:15:51

You just can't get away with it anymore with

1:15:53

the electrosmog environment

1:15:55

that we live in and I don't know if I've

1:15:57

just come to that conclusion it's

1:15:59

too much . And actually one cool

1:16:02

example and yeah , I'm

1:16:04

not discounted , but the voltage gate of

1:16:06

calcium channel stuff I was kind of like , yeah , it's not

1:16:08

super interesting , but you actually dive deeper into

1:16:10

it and there's a great

1:16:12

example of exactly that . So

1:16:15

the EMFs , activating the voltage

1:16:17

sensor , causing calcium

1:16:19

e-flex into the cell , causes nitric oxide

1:16:21

release and

1:16:24

nitric oxide has a very interesting role in our biology

1:16:27

. It can be good , it can be bad . It can

1:16:29

form with superoxide and things like proxenitrite

1:16:32

, which is really bad , or it can

1:16:34

be beneficial for certain things . But

1:16:36

for an example , affecting complex

1:16:38

four in the mitochondria , nitric

1:16:41

oxide can either be kind of

1:16:43

like a neutral effect on complex four

1:16:45

or it can be a very detrimental effect

1:16:47

if the environment does

1:16:50

not have enough oxygen . So if

1:16:52

we're in this pseudo-hypoxic environment

1:16:54

and then nitric oxide is introduced

1:16:57

to complex four , in

1:16:59

what would that be ? A reduced state ? Then

1:17:02

it competes for the same binding site

1:17:04

and eventually leads to this massive

1:17:06

accumulation of nitric

1:17:08

oxide , increased reactive oxygen species

1:17:11

and eventual inhibition

1:17:13

. And what is produced at complex

1:17:16

four , is metabolic water right

1:17:18

? So it's all kind of this negative

1:17:20

feedback loop and that just goes

1:17:22

to show it's like maybe some EMF

1:17:24

exposure . Then there's higher

1:17:27

nitric oxide production and that's

1:17:29

fine if you

1:17:32

have high oxygen levels , oxidized

1:17:34

cytochrome C oxidase . But if

1:17:36

you're already in an artificially

1:17:39

lit environment I mean not getting

1:17:41

proper sunlight so hemoglobin transfer

1:17:43

of oxygen is lowered

1:17:45

there's this whole onslaught and then it's kind

1:17:48

of like , oh , that's when everything really

1:17:50

goes bad . So pseudo-hypoxia

1:17:52

plus like EMF exposure is

1:17:54

not good and it just

1:17:57

goes to show that our biology is actually

1:17:59

like very resilient , like there's all these backup

1:18:01

mechanisms , there's all these like

1:18:03

alternative ways to deal with problems

1:18:05

. But when you overwhelm it to

1:18:07

such a degree with the toxic super

1:18:10

world we live in , there's just no

1:18:12

way you're not going to have dysfunction

1:18:15

at all levels , especially in the mitochondria

1:18:17

.

1:18:18

Yeah , well , let's talk about what people

1:18:20

can do , because that is

1:18:22

the hope . I like to leave

1:18:24

my podcasts on some actionable

1:18:27

advice . So you mentioned

1:18:29

that getting out of the city makes the most sense

1:18:31

and I think that

1:18:33

finding out where these

1:18:36

5G towers are

1:18:38

and kind of probably

1:18:40

moving as far away as you can after

1:18:44

you've done things like affect

1:18:47

your own indoor environment because that's

1:18:50

another point If you're worried

1:18:52

about you move away from the 5G

1:18:54

tower but you've got again your phone

1:18:56

on next to you , sleeping next to your

1:18:58

head , then we've

1:19:00

got to get in the order of operations correct first

1:19:02

. But talk about what you suggest

1:19:05

for people that can move and for both

1:19:07

people that can't move .

1:19:10

Yeah , if you can get out of high population

1:19:12

areas , obviously that's ideal . I

1:19:14

think even moving from a downtown

1:19:16

area to a suburb like 20

1:19:19

minute move , you could say you just work

1:19:21

in the same place . But instead of living downtown

1:19:23

in a high rise or an apartment , apartment

1:19:27

complexes are . I stayed at a friend's house

1:19:29

the other day when I was skiing in Utah

1:19:31

and you just flip on the wife and

1:19:34

I was getting him on board . He's like , yeah , I'll turn

1:19:36

the Wi-Fi off , sure thing . He's like I trust

1:19:38

you . But then I go and look at the

1:19:40

Wi-Fi and there's like 15 Wi-Fi networks

1:19:42

within my area , whereas

1:19:44

in my house in Wyoming there's just

1:19:46

my network and that's it

1:19:48

. Yeah , so getting

1:19:51

out of an apartment complex , high rise downtown

1:19:53

area is huge . I think it's even going to be

1:19:55

more important in

1:19:57

two years , three years , when they really

1:19:59

start rolling out millimeter waves

1:20:01

, as mentioned . They're not really in

1:20:03

use at all yet , but

1:20:05

that's coming . I don't know if

1:20:08

it's next year , I don't know if it's this year or

1:20:10

in three to five years when it really becomes

1:20:12

like a normal everyday thing . Maybe

1:20:14

it'll only be for big events downtown

1:20:17

, but for 5G , as

1:20:19

mentioned , with the targeted beam , the higher power

1:20:21

beam . You just want to be avoiding

1:20:24

high trafficked areas on

1:20:26

a regular basis . To

1:20:28

me , the best way to avoid

1:20:30

a high level of exposure and

1:20:33

I noticed as well is when you go to these

1:20:35

areas you just don't feel as

1:20:37

good and it's not like a coincidence

1:20:39

. Even moving

1:20:41

to a single level

1:20:44

apartment instead of like a massive

1:20:46

complex or 10 minutes outside

1:20:48

of downtown , I think could be a

1:20:50

drastic improvement . If

1:20:52

you can move , obviously , wherever

1:20:55

you want , then rural areas are

1:20:57

always better . You're going to have less

1:20:59

EMFs . Less people means

1:21:01

less EMFs . That's

1:21:05

the way to go about it . The other thing

1:21:07

is how you use technology . Recently

1:21:10

I've overhauled my home

1:21:13

internet environment . I'm hardwired

1:21:15

in . I

1:21:17

turned my Wi-Fi off at night or

1:21:20

I was turning it off at night . If

1:21:23

you have apartments or you have

1:21:25

roommates , you can use things like an outlet

1:21:27

timer . Hardwiring internet

1:21:29

, even if you have a Wi-Fi

1:21:32

network , will be helpful because

1:21:34

, again , if you're working on a laptop

1:21:37

, the laptop is the receiver , so

1:21:39

that's pinging a signal , whereas

1:21:41

if you hardwired in , even

1:21:43

with Wi-Fi on say , your roommates

1:21:46

don't want to keep

1:21:48

the Wi-Fi off during the day , or whoever

1:21:50

you have tenants or something

1:21:52

like that , even if you hardwire your laptop

1:21:54

, you're going to get a reduction in exposure

1:21:56

because you're removing that receiver from being

1:21:59

like one foot away from you all the time . That's

1:22:03

important . That's a big step . You

1:22:05

can hardwire your phone if you want as well . That's a little bit

1:22:07

more inconvenient , but I've tried that

1:22:10

Again . Keeping your phone on airplane

1:22:12

mode as much

1:22:14

as you can , using it especially

1:22:17

in low signal environments , your

1:22:19

cell phone will boost its

1:22:22

radiation output two to four times

1:22:24

to get a signal out

1:22:26

. Avoiding using your phone

1:22:28

in very poor reception areas

1:22:31

is a good one . Then

1:22:33

distance Distance is always

1:22:35

your best friend in terms of

1:22:37

mitigation of EMF exposure

1:22:39

. Keeping your phone

1:22:41

always on speaker Listen

1:22:44

to Apple , they're the ones that tell you . Never

1:22:46

hold it against your head and

1:22:48

always use it on speaker . Always use it

1:22:50

on with headphones . If

1:22:52

you want to use air tube headphones

1:22:55

, they're better than wired . Wired or far better than

1:22:57

Bluetooth . Again , it's this toxic

1:23:00

accumulation of exposure

1:23:02

. Any sort of reduction

1:23:04

that you can implement in your daily

1:23:07

life will be a benefit . Turning the Wi-Fi

1:23:09

off for four hours a

1:23:11

night is better than zero

1:23:13

hours . It's better than 24 , seven exposure

1:23:15

. But if you can turn off for

1:23:17

six or eight , that's even better . If you

1:23:20

can turn your phone on airplane mode for

1:23:22

X amount of time . It's

1:23:24

all about just improvements

1:23:27

on any level and

1:23:29

really just striving for that

1:23:31

. Of course , all the lifestyle habits

1:23:33

that you preach , that I preach getting

1:23:36

outside as much as possible , leaving

1:23:39

your phone . Especially , I

1:23:43

used to be into tracking my runs or things

1:23:45

like that . Now , whenever

1:23:48

I exercised , I leave my phone

1:23:50

at home . If I want to time myself

1:23:52

, I bring a really crappy

1:23:54

DC battery powered watch and

1:23:56

just use that , because I

1:23:59

really am trying to be deliberate about just

1:24:01

breaking a connection for

1:24:03

at least one to two hours

1:24:05

a day where I'm

1:24:07

not even near my phone , I'm

1:24:09

not even near technology because

1:24:11

it is so challenging . As we are

1:24:14

on technology so

1:24:16

much , there

1:24:18

are good companies out there where you can buy

1:24:20

Ethernet cables and all

1:24:22

this sort of set of like techwellnesscom

1:24:25

, electra Health , I think I've bought stuff

1:24:27

from in terms of shielding

1:24:29

products and things like that . I'm not

1:24:31

a huge fan , as you know , of like harmonizers

1:24:34

and all that nonsense . I

1:24:36

talk about a lot of that in my EMF

1:24:38

course and then I'm also

1:24:41

working on a whole curriculum

1:24:43

for EMF stuff . I

1:24:46

don't know when this will be released , but I'm

1:24:48

building one on modern tech

1:24:50

which is going to be EMF 201

1:24:53

, which pretty much talks all about 5G

1:24:55

, 6g , 4g electric

1:24:59

vehicles , all the

1:25:01

above traveling , and that will

1:25:03

all be covered in that course , so you can check that

1:25:05

out . I think we need to support companies

1:25:08

that are trying to build technology better

1:25:10

. I've

1:25:13

podcasted , and definitely you need

1:25:16

to podcast , with Anjan from Daylight

1:25:18

Computer Support

1:25:21

that that's a really cool venture

1:25:23

that they've got going on down there or

1:25:25

over there in Silicon

1:25:27

Valley and it's cool to see

1:25:29

that solutions are potentially

1:25:32

starting to pop up . And then we need to embrace

1:25:34

that . We need to educate people

1:25:36

on the harmful effects and

1:25:38

kind of just have an opt

1:25:41

out , because if people have an alternative

1:25:43

they will use it . If they don't , a

1:25:45

lot of these things are inconvenient . But

1:25:48

again , any reduction in exposure can

1:25:50

be helpful , especially , I would

1:25:52

say Number one priority , number

1:25:54

one recommendation is for

1:25:56

children . They are far more susceptible

1:25:59

to harmful effects from EMFs

1:26:02

because of their developing biology

1:26:04

, because of their smaller body size and

1:26:06

this is really where I get passionate about

1:26:08

it , because this is really

1:26:11

sad and they're getting mitochondrial

1:26:13

hetero plasmia at such earlier

1:26:15

ages and that's why we see chronic disease

1:26:17

at such earlier ages , and

1:26:20

especially if that's starting in

1:26:22

the womb . So pregnancy , fertility

1:26:25

, again , huge EMF issues

1:26:27

. I would say almost that's the biggest

1:26:30

issue really . And , yeah

1:26:32

, making that a priority for your children , if not

1:26:34

yourself .

1:26:36

Yeah , great summer interest and I'll underline

1:26:39

a couple points . And there's

1:26:41

no role for these gimmicky devices

1:26:43

that you can stick on your iPhone or

1:26:45

wear around your neck . That's

1:26:47

a scam and just avoid that . This

1:26:50

is about distance and the inverse

1:26:52

square law , as you've talked about at length here

1:26:55

in previous discussions . So it's just

1:26:57

about getting distance . The

1:26:59

nature thing is so important because it

1:27:02

seems like when we just get back to nature , all

1:27:04

these minor problems kind of solve for

1:27:06

themselves . And trees , they're blocking

1:27:09

the 5G signal . They're also concentrating

1:27:11

the infrared photons , which are the

1:27:13

beneficial sunlight non-visible

1:27:15

sunlight . So there's even

1:27:17

more reasons to live in a place that's surrounded

1:27:19

by trees and has good tree

1:27:22

cover . So that is

1:27:24

a great summary and

1:27:26

if anyone wants to delve deeper

1:27:28

into these topics then

1:27:31

, yeah , I would really encourage checking out

1:27:33

Tristan's course EMF 101 and

1:27:35

the rest of his courses which

1:27:37

he's going to be building , and hopefully

1:27:39

we can raise the awareness of

1:27:42

the health impacts of non-native EMF

1:27:44

, starting with , obviously

1:27:46

, with blue light , which I've talked about at length , but

1:27:49

continuing with Wi-Fi , with 5G , with

1:27:51

all these other forms of energy

1:27:54

and radiation that your biology

1:27:56

did not evolve with . So

1:27:59

I will include all these links in the show

1:28:01

notes for everyone

1:28:03

. And , yes again

1:28:05

, if you have more questions , then do

1:28:07

Tristan's course and

1:28:09

they will hopefully give you the tools

1:28:12

to mitigate this environment

1:28:14

. I've also talked about

1:28:17

in my course . The circadian

1:28:19

reset is about how

1:28:22

you can also get back to nature

1:28:24

in a bunch of ways , and optimizing

1:28:26

I think your circadian health is also part of basically

1:28:30

crushing your mitochondria through this toxic

1:28:32

environment that we find ourselves in . So

1:28:35

, tristan , thank you so much for coming

1:28:37

on and sharing all this amazing knowledge . I think

1:28:39

you're really piecing

1:28:41

together areas of science and

1:28:43

biology that no one else sees , and

1:28:45

that is what we need . We need multidisciplinary

1:28:47

thinkers , we need engineers coming into

1:28:49

health and biology , so I

1:28:51

think together we can make

1:28:54

a difference . So thanks again .

1:28:56

Thanks for having me again , max . It's always a pleasure , cheers

1:28:59

.